Observations on the Application of Smart Pigging on Transmission Pipelines
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Observations on the Application of Smart Pigging on Transmission Pipelines A Focus on OPS’s Inline Inspection Public Meeting of 8/11/05 Prepared for the http://www.pstrust.org/ by Richard B. Kuprewicz President, Accufacts Inc. [email protected] September 5, 2005 Accufacts Inc. “Clear Knowledge in the Over Information Age” This report is developed from information clearly in the public domain. The views expressed in this document represent the observations and opinions of the author. Executive Summary Smart pigs, also known as inline inspection (“ILI”) tools or intelligent pigs, are electronic devices designed to flow on the inside of a transmission pipeline, usually while the line is in service, to inspect a pipeline for various types of anomalies that can increase the risks of pipeline failure.1 This paper comments on observations pertaining to the Office of Pipeline Safety’s (“OPS”) public meeting of August 11, 2005 in Houston, Texas.2 Approximately 400 industry, pigging vendors, and regulatory representatives attended this meeting, dramatically underscoring the gravity of this important subject. This author concurs with the public meeting announcement and fully supports and is committed to assisting OPS’s effort, and many in the industry, to advance the prudent application of ILI in gas and liquid transmission pipeline systems. OPS has a long history of encouraging technical development to improve pipeline safety. Smart pigging has taken on an even more critical role with the promulgation of integrity management rulemaking in the last several years.3 In some situations pigging is not the best or preferred inspection method for various reasons, especially if the technology is misapplied, oversold, or the pigging process and information mishandled. It is extremely important to recognize those situations where smart pigging technologies have not advanced sufficiently, or where the pigging process is incomplete such that it interferes with inspection quality. In such misapplications, ILI may not be effective or warranted. It is crucial to properly communicate to the industry and the public the appropriate limits of this important technology, especially those tools still in development. This white paper briefly describes various smart pig technologies, outlines several new industry standards (including the just released API 1163),4 that should advance the proper utilization of smart pigs, comments on the 8/11/05 public meeting, and identifies areas where further pigging research, development, and advancement are necessary. Smart pigging, when properly applied, can serve as a superior inspection tool for many risks of concern over other integrity inspection methods. A proper smart pigging program can play a vital role in integrity management (“IM”). This author advises that OPS “stay the course” in ILI efforts, but continue its oversight of the inspection repairs and IM process to assure continual improvement. It is expected that the new standards discussed in this report will play a significant role in this continual improvement. An Advisory Bulletin alerting industry, regulators, and the public on the new standards, and OPS’s critical observations and expectations on the ILI process, should be issued. Smart Pig Types – A Brief Overview Smart pigs are a combination of sophisticated electronic devices utilizing various technologies and include signal sources, sensors to detect various anomalies, onboard computer(s) to gather and collect data, and power sources to drive all the electronics. Together this equipment mounted on a pig sled can 1 An anomaly is an imperfection in the pipe wall or weld. All pipelines have anomalies and most anomalies are non-problematic (e.g. many anomalies will not grow or go to failure over time). One objective of integrity management is to specifically identify/control anomalies that can possibly fail. 2 Office of Pipeline Safety meeting announcement web site, http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/, “Public Meeting on Operator Use of Inline Inspection Devices, August 11, 2005. 3 49CFR192 Subpart O for gas transmission, and 49CFR195.452 for liquid pipelines. 4 API 1163, “In-line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard,” First Edition, August 2005, issued August 5, 2005. 1 easily exceed several tons in weight, especially those tools for larger diameter pipelines. The term “smart pig” is utilized to differentiate the tools containing sophisticated electronics from more conventional pigs such as cleaning (i.e. poly, brush, bullet, etc.), gauging, or batch pigs that are simple mechanical devices run in pipelines for various purposes. To get an appreciation of the complexity of smart pigs, the following pig vendor web sites have excellent pictures of various pigs: http://www.roseninspection.net http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/serv/pipeline/en/index.htm http://www.tuboscope-pipeline.com Depending on their specific technology, smart pig devices are utilized to identify certain imperfections in the pipeline that might lead to future failure, either leak or rupture. OPS initiated the 8/11/05 public meeting raising questions about the use of ILI, after observing pipeline failures in systems where smart pigging had been performed. This paper presents observations and perspectives from the point of view of Accufacts Inc., who was commissioned by the Pipeline Safety Trust to attend that meeting. We clearly support OPS’s efforts to expand and clarify the proper selection and use of inline inspection devices where appropriate, as continual guidance efforts are needed in this area. Many pipeline companies are well versed and experienced in the proper application and limits of various smart pig tools, while other pipeline companies are not. The public meeting was needed to raise the bar on understanding the use of this important inspection method. Frequently ILI can prove superior over many other inspection methods, provided the right ILI tool and pigging processes are utilized, and the pipeline operator clearly understands the limits of these tools. From the author’s perspective, smart pig tools fall into four basic general categories or types: 1) general metal loss, such as corrosion or gouge detection,5 2) dimensional information tools intended to determine roundness or cross section of the pipe, 3) pipeline position or mapping tools, and 4) specialty pigs, designed to address certain specialized risks of concern or threats on transmission pipelines. Four Basic ILI Types - General Metal Loss - Dimensional - Mapping - Specialty General Metal Loss Smart Pigs General metal loss is usually associated with general corrosion that occurs in the parent metal of the pipe wall. As a result, the corrosion rates tend to be slower (relatively speaking). Pitting corrosion is a special form of general corrosion where the corrosion rates have been accelerated and focused in a specific location of the pipe wall for various reasons. Smart pig tools have improved considerably in the area of general corrosion determination over the past 30 plus years 5 Gouge is defined here to mean a loss of pipeline wall from an external mechanical source that results in sharp edged grooving or a valley in the pipe wall. Gouge is a different risk of concern than gouge within a dent. 2 and fall into basically two different technical approaches: conventional magnetic flux leakage (“MFL”) or conventional ultrasonic (called compression wave).6 By conventional, I mean that the tool uses technology with the signal forces aligned with the flow of the pipeline (along the axis of the pipe) for MFL, and directly (radially) into the pipe wall for ultrasonic sound waves. While not making light of the many technical challenges that had to be overcome, these orientations were the easiest to develop and met many of the pipeline operator’s needs of the time. General metal loss tools over the years have advanced because of improvements in specific technology such as probe resolution and number (a byproduct of electronic miniaturization), advances in computer power, and power storage improvements. Given the preponderance and significant role of general metal loss pigs in the industry, I need to spend a little time describing their approach. Conventional magnetic flux leakage (“MFL”) pigs utilize powerful magnets on the pig to impart a magnetic flux in the pipe steel along the flow axis of the pipeline. A change in magnetic flux (the leakage) in pipe steel occurs where metal is missing in the pipe wall and this flux change is measured and recorded by instruments on the pig. After the pig has been run and the data retrieved, the flux leakage signals are interpreted via various proprietary software algorithms, experienced personnel, and extensive comparison database files to properly decipher these signal measurements. There are several different resolution versions of MFL now offered as the number and sensitivity of the measurement probes is increased to improve resolution. Conventional compression wave ultrasonic technology directs high frequency sound waves from probes located on the pig radially into the pipe wall and measures the delay in the return reflected signal to identify metal loss (a process analogous to radar). The data gathered during a pig run are also analyzed, but ultrasonic incorporates more direct measurement and tends to be less prone to misinterpretation as the measurement process is not as “algorithmic” or prone to mistranslation as MFL. Software, however, is often also utilized to assist in the presentation of very large volumes of